There Is Not Evidence And Has Never Been Evidence Of Darwins.... - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

God & Science Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| God and Science \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

There Is Not Evidence And Has Never Been Evidence Of Darwins....

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Motumos on July 4, 2001 17:50:45 UTC

There is not one or has even been any evidence of Darwins theory of evolution which he endicated that species evolve into another species. Species adapt to their environment, but a species has never been transformed into another species, this is using your own views about not being any evidence of this. If this was also a uniform and continous way of life, why aren't there any species that connect another species?

Follow Ups:

I can name and show you evidence of colors in between other colo - motumos - July 4, 2001 - 18:18 UTC
- The fossile record is one thing - highvoltage - July 5, 2001 - 06:17 UTC
  - I have studied both Anthropology, and biology, and non exist. - motumos - July 5, 2001 - 13:53 UTC
    - Archeaopteryx and Archaeornyx - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
- It's common sense - stormcrow - July 5, 2001 - 13:53 UTC
  - Listen to yourslef man..??!!?? - motumos - July 5, 2001 - 15:42 UTC
    - If you were indeed studying biology, you knew - alexander - July 5, 2001 - 17:24 UTC
      - A wolf is the same species as a dog. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 01:52 UTC
        
        No, I did NOT study biology in depth. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 17:36 UTC
        
        But the same question is applied, Atheists don't prove a thing.. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:00 UTC
        
        Biology Help - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 17:48 UTC
      - Also, you seem to be describing adaptation, not evolution. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 01:56 UTC
        
        Hair and nails are one thing, appendix and coccyx are another - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 02:11 UTC
    - I think you're a little misguided - stormcrow - July 5, 2001 - 18:32 UTC
      - Humans are the only species with mitochondrial DNA and - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 01:37 UTC
        
        I'll clarify a little - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 01:56 UTC
        
        But you see, It hasn't ever been proven. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 05:56 UTC
        
        Also, what followed a different path? - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 05:59 UTC
        
        Boy, is this dark ages discussion or what? - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 19:03 UTC
        
        Problem with your analogy - isaiaha41 - July 7, 2001 - 13:32 UTC
        
        I will admit that evolution seems to have driving force - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 13:49 UTC
        
        Darwins Theory of evolution is also jumping to conclusions storm - caprinicus - July 8, 2001 - 13:21 UTC
        
        Two sides to that coin - isaiaha41 - July 8, 2001 - 13:52 UTC
        
        I agree - stormcrow - July 8, 2001 - 23:26 UTC
        
        No god(s), Santa(s), etc. beings are needed. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 19:44 UTC
        
        It's just a suspicion - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 19:54 UTC
        
        Mario, my post is not for you. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 20:19 UTC
        
        Okay (nt) - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 20:36 UTC
      - Yeah, God did it. - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 18:59 UTC
        
        Yasir, please use word "math" instead of "god" . - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 19:29 UTC
        
        I really love it - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 19:42 UTC
        
        But that doesn't prove evolution, only adaptation.... AGAIN!! - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:08 UTC
        
        What's the difference between adaptation and evolution? - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 00:07 UTC
Read my post again - stormcrow - July 5, 2001 - 13:50 UTC
- Thats not what you said, and you know it. - motumos - July 5, 2001 - 15:26 UTC
  - Evolution is false? What century are you from? - alexander - July 5, 2001 - 17:47 UTC
    - Not species changing - highvoltage - July 5, 2001 - 18:09 UTC
      - Yeah, it is - stormcrow - July 5, 2001 - 18:22 UTC
        
        Species (DNA) change constantly. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 00:19 UTC
        
        you describe adaptation once again, confusing with evolution.WOW - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 02:11 UTC
        
        As I understand it, evolution is a result of adaptation - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 02:30 UTC
        
        Adaptaion is different then Evolution. Darwin made it confusing. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 04:07 UTC
        
        Adaptation LEADS to evolution - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 04:21 UTC
        
        No it doesn't, - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 05:10 UTC
        
        Species?? - doctordick - July 6, 2001 - 14:17 UTC
        
        The conclusion is clear: Darvin is right. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 21:16 UTC
        
        Current DNA changes have not proven Darwin right, more like Wron - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:13 UTC
        
        So, where do all species come from then, Motumos? - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 19:58 UTC
        
        Thank you for that - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 01:57 UTC
    - Alexander wrong again. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 02:02 UTC
      - Are you blind to facts or just plain ignorant? - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 20:54 UTC
        
        Clarification - harvey1 - July 6, 2001 - 22:55 UTC
        
        You need to study more. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:24 UTC
        
        oh, and about humans history... - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:31 UTC
        
        That was a desperate response - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 02:28 UTC
        
        not very wrong from the truth. - caprinicus - July 7, 2001 - 04:13 UTC
        
        I don't know about that - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 13:30 UTC
        
        Elements are exposed to many elements and radiation. - caprinicus - July 8, 2001 - 13:42 UTC
        
        Bible is incorrect again. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 21:29 UTC
        
        Apparently you haven't read the bible carefully! - highvoltage - July 10, 2001 - 16:25 UTC
        
        What about the Orthodox Jews - yanniru - July 10, 2001 - 17:00 UTC
        
        Please explain - highvoltage - July 11, 2001 - 04:44 UTC
        
        From the Torah - yanniru - July 11, 2001 - 12:09 UTC
        
        Sources? - highvoltage - July 12, 2001 - 04:49 UTC
        
        You have to speak with an Orthadox Jew - yanniru - July 12, 2001 - 21:37 UTC
        
        carbon-dating not accurate more than several thous yrs back - isaiaha41 - July 8, 2001 - 19:06 UTC
        
        How can carbon sample be contaminated? - alexander - July 10, 2001 - 17:49 UTC
        
        Soot - doctordick - July 12, 2001 - 23:32 UTC
        
        Dammit, adaptation LEADS to evolution - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 02:24 UTC
        
        Here's a contradiction you athiets even try to use as proof of E - caprinicus - July 7, 2001 - 04:04 UTC
        
        How do you figure? - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 13:26 UTC
        
        Not exactly. - caprinicus - July 8, 2001 - 13:54 UTC
        
        What? - harvey1 - July 9, 2001 - 18:11 UTC
        
        This is not a theist/atheist controversy - harvey1 - July 9, 2001 - 18:07 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2025 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins